I’ve written a number of articles proving the global warming science is far from “settled.” I’ve also written about the political agenda behind climate change. It is stark:

All nations will be ordered (if treaties are signed) to REDUCE THEIR OVERALL ENERGY PRODUCTION BY A DISASTROUS AMOUNT.

Therefore, the output of carbon dioxide would be cut, and, we are told, “the planet could be saved.”

But no replacement of carbon-based fuels with solar, wind, and other popular alternative sources could possibly, given present technology, make up the difference and stave off the catastrophe stemming from a major cut in planetary energy production.

National economies would falter, poverty would deepen, chaos would expand, and in the ensuing crisis, the (Globalist) forces of order would move in and “solve the problem.” Also known as: a takeover of all major institutions of government, worldwide.

“Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.”

“Agency officials admit that the problem with instruments recording low temperatures likely happened in several locations throughout Australia, but they refuse to admit to manipulating temperature readings. The BOM located missing logs in Goulburn and the Snow Mountains, both of which are in New South Wales.”

Let’s be clear. The missing and altered temperature readings actually indicated lower-than-normal temperatures which, if reported, would weaken the assertion that Australia is getting hotter.

The Daily Caller continues: “BOM [Australian Bureau of Meteorology] has been put under the microscope before for similar manipulations. The agency was accused in 2014 of tampering with the country’s temperature record to make it appear as if temperatures had warmed over the decades, according to reports in August 2014.”

“[Biologist and former director of the environmental unit at the Australian Institute of Public Affairs, Jennifer] Marohasey claimed at the time that BOM’s adjusted temperature records are ‘propaganda’ and not science. She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend.”

“Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of ‘dramatic warming’ over the past century.”

But don’t worry.

The science is settled.

There must be no reasoned debate about the subject. Just start lowering the energy outputs of all countries on the planet.

Certainly don’t listen to a man like Freeman Dyson, who has no mainstream credentials—except for the following: physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award. Dyson states:

“What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the [climate change] models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…”

Pay no attention to that.

Shut your eyes, close your mouth, and wait for the lights to dim.

The people in charge are the people in charge, and if they don’t want debate, they must be right.

Censoring debate is always a sign that truth and justice are winning.

Right?

Several unhinged commentators have gone so far as to suggest jail time for scientists who deny the existence of manmade warming. Marc Morano, narrator and co-writer of the documentary, Climate Hustle, asked the popular American TV host, Bill Nye “The Science Guy,” whether he thought such jail threats against scientists would have “a chilling effect” on dissent.

Nye answered, “That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change — I think is good.”

In other words, love censorship when it silences your opponents.

Bill Nye understands the proper method of science and research (experiment, replication, rejection, debate, questioning) the way a cockroach understands Aristotle’s treatises on logic.

Make no mistake about it, we are looking at fake climate science. The purveyors don’t care about truth. They only care about owning the bully pulpit and keeping dissenters away from that pulpit.

This is how official science is done. In the case of climate change, claim the planet is warming and claim the debate about the subject must be cooled until it is frozen and stored in a locker out of view.

In my investigations of official science and medicine over the past 35 years, I’ve seen this strategy deployed time and time again:

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

“All right, contestants, listen carefully. Here’s the final question. The winner will be awarded three years living in a hut with no electricity or heat and he’ll dig for tubers and roots so he can eat—thus contributing to a decrease in global warming. All right, here is the question: Whose private jet spews more CO2? Al Gore’s or Leo DiCaprio’s?”

But don’t weep for Al. He can still amuse himself counting his money. Yes, Al’s done very well for himself hustling the “settled science” all these years, shilling for an energy-depleted Globalist utopia.

Al knows actual science the way a June bug knows how to pilot a spaceship.

In 2001, Al was worth less than $2 million. By 2012, it was estimated he’d piled up a nice neat $100 million in his lock box.

How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled—via loans, grants and tax relief—somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the federal government to go greener.

Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.

Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.

Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It made batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. Gore sold when shares cost $21 to $26—before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.

Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the administration of President Barack Obama.

On the side, Gore had been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (Gore was constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.

So Gore, as of 2012, had $100 million.

The man worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The federal government helped out with major, major bucks.

This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it.

—How many scientists and other PhDs have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming?

2012: A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists said no. Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that said no. According to Petitionproject.org, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.Ds.

Global warming is one of the Rockefeller Globalists’ chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”

Globalists want all national governments on the planet to commit to lowering energy production by a significant and destructive percentage in the next 15 years—“to save us from a horrible fate.”

Their real agenda is clear: “The only solution to climate change is a global energy-management network. We (the Globalist leaders) are in the best position to manage such a system. We will allocate mandated energy-use levels throughout the world, region by region, nation by nation, and eventually, citizen by citizen.”

This is the long-term goal. This is the Globalists’ Holy Grail.

Slavery imposed through energy.

Al Gore has done admirable work for his bosses. And for himself. As a past politician with large name recognition, he’s promoted fake science, tried to scare the population of Earth, and financially leveraged himself to the hilt in the fear-crevice he helped create.

Ask not for whom the bells toll. They toll with delight. They’re attached to cash registers. And Al has stuck his hands in and removed the cash.

He might be crying in his beer today, after Trump rejected the Paris climate treaty, but Al’s also thinking about how he can play to the Left that’s so outraged at Trump’s decision. More speeches, more “inconvenient truth” films, maybe a summit with Leo DiCaprio and Obama.

Yes, there’s still money in those hills…quite possibly more money than ever.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

June 1, 2017, a day that will live in infamy for the liars, thieves, and killers of the new international economic order. They will see it as infamy, because their plan to sink the economy of America into a final death rattle has been rejected by Trump.

Fake climate science has been the lynch pin, justifying orders to cut CO2 emissions—but make no mistake about it, cutting emissions means cutting energy production in almost all countries of the world. THAT’S THE GLOBALIST TARGET. ENERGY PRODUCTION.

Get that one straight. The Globalist “utopia” isn’t a trillion solar collectors or a trillion windmills—it’s lights going out all over the world.

It’s LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION.

That’s the monster hiding in the closet. That’s the outcome arch-Globalists are determined to foist on the planet, because that’s the society they want to control—poverty-stricken, abject, shuffling along a bleak path to nowhere.

Trump just stuck a knife in that scheme.

Yes, I fully understand the devil is in the details, but it is up to people everywhere, who have active brain cells and can see through the climate hoax, to take this opportunity to reject, publicly, the whole climate agenda.

CO2 is not the enemy.

Do the research yourself and see if there is any way these so-called scientists can assess, now or in the past, THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WHOLE PLANET.

The science is settled? There is no room for argument?

Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the [climate change] models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…” (The Register, October 11, 2015)

Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming: “The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (The Guardian, September 30, 2016)

And these are but a tiny fraction of the statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global warming.

But regardless, never lose sight of agenda based on this “settled science.”

VASTLY LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION FOR PLANET EARTH.

And at the same time, truly viable forms of energy production (e.g., water turbines, hydrogen), that could be brought online with but a fraction of previously chiseled government subsidies for oil and nuclear, are sitting on the shelf gathering dust—BECAUSE THE MODEL OF SCARCITY FOR THE PLANET IS WHAT THE GLOBALIST EMPIRE DESIRES.

Until such time as that model is destroyed, Earth needs energy, all the energy it can produce.

The climate criminals, working for Globalism Central, staged their Paris “Treaty” to try to torpedo that production. Obama signed on in Paris, knowing full well he was committing a criminally unconstitutional act by disregarding the vote of the US senate, a vote that was needed to confer legitimacy to the agreement.

There is nothing binding about the Paris “Treaty.” Nothing.

And today, Trump squashed it.

Might he re-enter negotiations and give away some of what he’s just taken back for America? Anything’s possible. But for now, the Paris Accord is a dead duck here in the US.

Trump is going to catch a new version of Hell for what he’s just done. But if enough Americans, and people around the world, realize the true implication of this historic day, and proclaim it, they’ll win. We’ll win. Each one of us.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Warning: don’t use common sense in judging medical pronouncements. You’ll lapse from The Holy Order of Mystical Research.

by Jon Rappoport

May 24, 2017

Medical public-relations people keep a steady stream of stories flowing to the press, day after day.

Aside from filling space, their main function is to assure the public that “advances are always being made” and “good things are right around the corner.” It’s much better, for example, than, “Well, this month we didn’t discover a single important datum. Here’s hoping for better luck in June.”

A brief examination of medical-story headlines reveals that these stories are lacking in a little thing called reality; or they announce something so obvious it hardly merits mention, much less a full-blown study to establish what any person with a few working brain cells already knows.

Here are a few such headlines from a popular medical site (medicalnewstoday). They represent a mere few days’ worth of vital…baloney:

HOW DOES POOR SLEEP AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO LEARN? A STUDY INVESTIGATES.

Another stunning revelation. The boy is lonely. He doesn’t sleep well. We never would have imagined such a connection without a meticulous study.

CHRONIC PAIN AMPLIFIES THE BRAIN’S REACTION TO NEW INJURIES.

The insights keep coming. A person already in a state of chronic pain reacts more severely to new pain than a person who isn’t suffering from chronic pain. Give the researchers a Nobel and a trip to Disneyland.

Someone with respiratory disease could experience trouble when breathing diesel fumes. Wow. A mind-bending correlation. And we need to know the exact mechanism of the flare-up because…? Researchers are going to develop a drug that will eliminate the problem? “Do you have TB? Now you can walk through diesel fumes without a reaction.” Sure. The drug is called Thorazine. You’ll still have a severe reaction, but you won’t know it. Or anything else.

Here are two related headlines: LARGE META-ANALYSIS IDENTIFIES NEW GENES ASSOCIATED WITH INTELLIGENCE. GENES RESPONSIBLE FOR SEVERE CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE IDENTIFIED BY RESEARCHERS.

I love stories about “breakthroughs” in gene research. First of all, try to find one version of gene therapy for any disease that works across the board. Good luck. But you can find thousands of articles about “advances” in the research. They hint at glorious innovations coming to your neighborhood soon. So let me know when this genetic discovery about heart disease results in a treatment that actually reverses the condition. And as for genes associated with intelligence, it’s easy as pie to make claims, as long as you don’t have to try to increase IQ with an injection. Getting the point? Researchers can obtain all sorts of money to do studies that then posit some correlation between a condition and various gaggles of genes—as long as they don’t have come up with an actual gene therapy that works. It’s a great con. Nice work if they can get it, and they can.

THE SECRET TO COMBATING PANCREATIC CANCER MAY LIE IN SUPPRESSION OF A COMMON PROTEIN.

Yes, it may. Or it may not. Who can say? We’ll have to wait and see. Give the researchers another decade. Meanwhile, read about lots of “maybes.” It’s possible that a steady diet of “maybe” articles will increase your intelligence, help you sleep better at night, reverse heart disease, and decrease your reaction to diesel fumes.

It’s also possible the articles will turn you into a creature with the IQ of a tree-dwelling sloth.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Medicalxpress reports: “Researchers at the University of Zurich have identified the brain mechanism that governs decisions between honesty and self-interest. Using non-invasive brain stimulation, they could even increase honest behavior.”

In an experiment involving rolling dice, where cheating would increase volunteers’ earnings, “researchers applied transcranial direct current stimulation over a region in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC). This noninvasive brain stimulation method makes brain cells more sensitive i.e., they are more likely to be active. When the researchers applied this stimulation during the task, participants were less likely to cheat.”

That result was only obtained with people who weighed moral choices. For volunteers who were wholly committed to cheating, the brain-manipulation had no effect.

This experiment reveals where brain research is going. Change the brain, change behavior. It’s a simple premise. It’s also a dangerous premise, because “greater good” is used as a justification for imposing ironclad behavior.

Of course, there are many people who can’t see consequences, who care nothing about free choice, who would favor this kind of societal control. They would say, “Increasing honesty is a good thing. It doesn’t matter how it’s done.”

In fact, these people would claim it’s extremely positive if people can’t act dishonestly, no matter how hard they try. So much the better.

Why not engineer civilization according to principles of good behavior? Lay down the principles, and then manipulate the brains of the population to obtain that desired result.

Everyone would “do good.” Except everyone would be a walking talking robot.

This distinction escapes a great many people. “What’s freedom anyway? What is this thing called free choice? Who cares?”

In fact, the medicalxpress article includes this gem: “the new [research] results raise the question to what degree honest behavior is based on biological predispositions, which may be crucial for jurisdiction. Michel Maréchal summarizes: ‘If breaches of honesty indeed represent an organic [brain] condition, our results question to what extent people can be made fully liable for their wrongdoings’.”

Why bother prosecuting cheats and liars and con artists and frauds? The perpetrators had no choice in the matter. They were controlled by their own brains. Instead, do away with the court system and treat these offenders. Change their brains. Then they’ll be honest. Substitute a good program for a defective program.

If you’re looking for a word to describe this heinous approach to human behavior and action, try technocracy. It posits the notion that society must be engineered by scientists. They define and plan the outcome, and they achieve it.

DARPA, the technical-research arm of the Pentagon, is leading the way in a mission to program the human brain.

What could go wrong?

In a word, everything.

For example, DARPA is deeply involved in developing the cortical modem, a little piece of equipment that costs about $10.

The gist? Insert proteins into neurons, and then beam photons into those proteins, thus creating image displays that bypass the normal channels of perception.

Virtual reality with no headset. The project is still in its early stages, but the direction is clear: give the “user” an image display beyond his ability to choose.

It’s touted as an overlay. The person, walking down the street, can still see the street, but he can also see what you give him, what you insert into his visual cortex. Of course, as the technology advances, you could take things further: block out physical reality and immerse the person in the virtual.

DARPA’s enthusiasm about this project, as usual, exceeds its current grasp, but its determination to succeed is quite genuine. And the money is there.

Here is a DARPA release (5/27/14) on the upcoming “brain-mapping” plan, in accordance with Obama’s initiative aimed at “preventing violence through improved mental health”—otherwise known as Clockwork Orange:

Translation: Reading myriad brain activities as they occur, and influencing that activity with various inputs/interferences. Drugs, electrical currents, nano-entities, etc.

Here’s another DARPA quote. This one lays out the foundation for the brain mission:

“…The program also aims to take advantage of neural plasticity, a feature of the brain by which the organ’s anatomy and physiology can alter over time to support normal brain function. Plasticity runs counter to previously held ideas that the adult brain is a ‘finished’ entity that can be statically mapped. Because of plasticity, researchers are optimistic that the brain can be trained or treated to restore normal functionality following injury or the onset of neuropsychological illness.”

Neural plasticity: the idea that brain activity is always changing and, therefore, can be externally molded by operators to fit a conception of “normalcy,” whatever that is, whatever “authorities” decide it is.

Chilling? Of course.

In the long run, this has nothing to do with “recovery from brain injuries.” That’s the cover story. The real goal is programming the brain to fit certain parameters of functioning.

“Plasticity is an intrinsic property of the human brain…The challenge we face is to learn enough about the mechanisms of plasticity to modulate them to achieve the best behavioral outcome for a given subject.”

“Modulate them.” “Achieve the best behavioral outcome.” Who defines that? Obviously, not the individual.

Notice the point of view: intervention is a given.

The brain will not be allowed to function on its own.

Behind all brain research lies that premise.

It’s no surprise that, in this technological age, the preferred method of mind control would involve an invasion by “experts.”

There are many, many brain-research professionals, and millions of laypeople, who believe that “intervention” is justified because it “corrects a chemical imbalance” in the brain. This is a myth.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the myth to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times (“Psychiatry’s New Brain-Mind and the Legend of the ‘Chemical Imbalance’”) (paywall) with this staggering and stark admission:

What DARPA’s program entails is altering the fundamental relationship between you and your brain. That’s the bottom line.

The alteration will throw up roadblocks. It will shrink the sum of what your brain can do.

The ongoing DARPA brain-programming mission isn’t merely a two-year program or a five-year program. It’s permanent.

It’s the gateway to a controlled society.

And it’s perfectly understandable that this project would come from DARPA, which is an arm of the Pentagon, which is the foremost proponent of “military thought” in the world.

The military is interested in, and devoted to, the issuing of commands and obedience to those commands. Stimulus, response.

The military vision of society is: define the functions of each citizen, coordinate those functions to produce overall “harmony through obedience.”

Since this is the true definition of insanity, and since it is impossible to secure, over the long-term, enough voluntary cooperation to build such a civilization, the target is the brain.

Train the brain, train the collective.

Consider this analogy for you and your brain, and what the objective of programming is:

The rider and the horse. Previously, the rider took his horse far and wide. The rider went where he wanted to go. The horse was willing. But then something happened. The horse was altered, rebuilt. Now he could only move a mile in any direction from his starting point. At the boundary, he stopped. He turned around and returned home. That was the rule. The rider of course wanted to go farther. But the horse was no longer capable.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Like this:

Public health officials usually fail to announce their reasons for claiming a particular virus causes a particular disease; they make those claims in an arbitrary authoritarian fashion.

In this article, I’m going to describe two vital steps in the process of proving a virus causes a disease. There are more steps, but these two will highlight a gaping problem.

I’m putting the information in a Q&A format:

Q: Let’s say researchers are claiming there is a new outbreak of a disease, or there is a disease they’ve never seen before. What’s their first step?

A: Most of the time, they assume a virus is the cause, rather than, say, a pesticide or a medical drug. They jump in and start looking for a virus.

Q: And when they find a virus?

A: Assuming they really do find one, they then look for correlation.

Q: What does that mean?

A: Let’s say they claim they’ve discovered 600 cases of the disease. They try to find the same virus in all those people. Because, if you say a virus causes a particular disease, you have to show that virus is present in all known cases of the disease—or an overwhelming percentage of cases, at the very least.

Q: That would be proof…

A: That would be one step of proof.

Q: Suppose, in these 600 cases, they can find the same virus in a hundred cases. Isn’t that pretty significant?

A: No. It isn’t. It means you couldn’t find the virus in 500 cases. And if that’s true, there is no reason to assume you have the right virus. In fact, it’s very strong evidence you don’t have the virus that’s causing the disease. It’s a compelling reason to go back to the drawing board. You say, “Well, we were wrong about that virus, let’s look for a different one.”

Q: All right. What if you do find the virus in 583 cases out of 600? Then what do you do?

A: You have to understand that the mere PRESENCE of the virus in all those cases ISN’T PROOF it’s causing disease. Lots of people walk around with the same virus in their bodies, but that virus isn’t causing them to get sick. You have to go further.

Q: Meaning?

A: Well, the next step would be finding that the 583 cases have a whole lot of the same virus in their bodies. A great quantity of virus. Not merely a trace. Not merely a little bit.

Q: Why?

A: Because cells in the body are reproducing all the time. If the amount of virus in the body is only infecting a tiny fraction of a particular type of cell, the virus isn’t going to cause a problem. The body is going to produce gigantic numbers of fresh uninfected cells every day.

Q: Do researcher carry out this kind of investigation? Do they assess how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are many situations where they don’t. For example, with the Zika virus, I see no evidence researchers examined many, many cases to see how much Zika was present.

Q: Why didn’t they?

A: You’d have to ask them. Perhaps they started to do that, and found there was only a tiny bit of Zika in the babies they examined, and they didn’t want to publicize the fact. They just wanted to assume Zika was the causes of babies being born with small heads and brain damage. But assuming isn’t proving.

Q: You’re talking about a major gap in research.

A: Yes.

Q: What method is used to decide how much virus is in a person’s body?

A: There are several methods. For example, the PCR test.

Q: What’s that?

A: With the PCR, you take a tiny, tiny sample of tissue from a patient. It’s so small you can’t observe it directly. You assume, you hope, you think this sample is a fragment of a virus. Now you amplify that fragment many times, until you can observe it, until you can (hopefully) identify it as the virus you claim is causing the disease…

Q: But that test wouldn’t tell you HOW MUCH virus is in the person’s body.

A: Many researchers believe the PCR allows you to infer how much virus is in a person’s body. I see no convincing evidence they can make such an inference. But also—you have to ask yourself, why did they do the PCR test in the first place? And the answer is: they couldn’t find, by more direct methods, any virus! If they had been able to, they wouldn’t have done the PCR. In other words, there was no reason to believe the patient had enough virus in his body to make him sick.

Q: Again, it seems there is a gaping hole in the research.

A: Indeed. But that doesn’t stop scientists from claiming they’ve found the virus that is causing a disease. I would cite two examples. In 2009, the CDC was embarrassed to learn that the overwhelming percentage of tests on Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with NO TRACE of Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. And in 2003, in Canada, more and more SARS patients were showing NO TRACE of the SARS virus.

Q: They would be enormous scandals.

A: They should have been enormous scandals, but the news was suppressed and buried.

Q: These people who were labeled with SARS and Swine Flu—what was really making these people sick?

A: There could have been a variety of causes. Don’t assume all so-called SARS or Swine Flu patients were sick for the same reason. The symptoms of these two illnesses were vague enough and general enough to have stemmed from a variety of causes. Since that’s the case, there was no reason to use the SARS and Swine Flu labels in the first place.

Q: The labels were a deception.

A: Yes. The labels group people together when there is no compelling reason to do so. But when you DO group people together with a disease label, you can sell drugs and vaccines designed to “treat the label.”

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Over the years, I’ve exposed a number of medical diagnostic tests. For example, the antibody test was once taken as a sign of good health when it registered positive, but then it was turned upside down—a positive result was read as a signal of illness.

Now we have the vaunted MRI brain-imaging system.

From sciencealert.com (7/6/16): “There could be a very serious problem with the past 15 years of research into human brain activity, with a new study suggesting that a bug in fMRI software could invalidate the results of some 40,000 papers.”

“That’s massive, because functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is one of the best tools we have to measure brain activity, and if it’s flawed, it means all those conclusions about what our brains look like during things like exercise, gaming, love, and drug addiction are wrong.”

“It’s fascinating stuff, but the fact is that when scientists are interpreting data from an fMRI machine, they’re not looking at the actual brain. As Richard Chirgwin reports for The Register, what they’re looking at is an image of the brain divided into tiny ‘voxels’, then interpreted by a computer program.”

“’Software, rather than humans … scans the voxels looking for clusters’, says Chirgwin. ‘When you see a claim that “Scientists know when you’re about to move an arm: these images prove it,” they’re interpreting what they’re told by the statistical software’.”

“To test how good this software actually is, Eklund and his team gathered resting-state fMRI data from 499 healthy people sourced from databases around the world, split them up into groups of 20, and measured them against each other to get 3 million random comparisons.”

“They tested the three most popular fMRI software packages for fMRI analysis – SPM, FSL, and AFNI – and while they shouldn’t have found much difference across the groups, the software resulted in false-positive rates of up to 70 percent.”

“And that’s a problem, because as Kate Lunau at Motherboard points out, not only did the team expect to see an average false positive rate of just 5 percent, it also suggests that some results were so inaccurate, they could be indicating brain activity where there was none.”

“’These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies and may have a large impact on the interpretation of neuroimaging results’, the team writes in PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences].”

“The bad news here is that one of the bugs the team identified has been in the system for the past 15 years, which explains why so many papers could now be affected.”

“The bug was corrected in May 2015, at the time the researchers started writing up their paper, but the fact that it remained undetected for over a decade shows just how easy it was for something like this to happen, because researchers just haven’t had reliable methods for validating fMRI results.”

40,000 scientific papers invalidated. And from what I gather, not everyone is sure all the problems with MRI have been corrected.

Think about the bloviating—“We now know what the brain is doing when people are running and sleeping and eating…” No reason to have believed any of this.

And then there is Obama’s so called Brain Initiative, a program kicked off and funded after the Sandy Hook School catastrophe. At least some of the scientific work has been relying on MRI imagining. How much of that work needs to be thrown out?

In case you think invalidating 40,000 research papers isn’t a gigantic scandal, consider how many times these worthless papers have been cited as evidence in other studies. The ripple effect creates a tsunami of lies.

And for each one of those lies, there has been a researcher who, quite sure of himself and his reputation, made statements to the press and colleagues and students, promoting his findings.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.